Search

Objective To evaluate early and follow-up outcomes following bilateral use of iliac branch devices (IBD) for aortoiliac endografting and assess the impact of center volume. We used data from the pELVIS international multicentric registry.Methods For the purpose of this study, only those patients receiving concomitant bilateral IBD implantation were analyzed. To assess the impact that procedural volume of bilateral IBD implantation could have on early and follow-up outcomes, participating institutions were classified as Site(s) A if they had performed >10 and/or >20% concomitant bilateral IBD procedure, otherwise they were classified as Site(s) B. Endpoints of the analysis included early (ie, 30-day) mortality and morbidity, as well as all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality during follow-up. Additional endpoints that were evaluated included IBD-related reinterventions, IBD occlusion or stenosis requiring reintervention (ie, loss of primary patency), and IBD-related type I endoleak.Results Overall, 96 patients received bilateral IBD implantation (out of 910 procedures collected in the whole pELVIS cohort), of whom 65 were treated at Site A (ie, Group A) and 31 were treated at Site(s) B (ie, Group B). In total, only 1 death occurred within 30 days from bilateral IBD implantation, and 9 patients experienced at least 1 major complication without any significant difference between subjects in Group A versus those in Group B (10.8% vs 6.5%, p=0.714). In the overall cohort, the 2-year freedom from IBD-related type I endoleaks and IBD primary patency were 96% and 92%, respectively; no significant differences were seen in those rates between Group A or Group B (95% vs 100%, p=0.335; 93% vs 88%, p=0.470). Freedom from any IBD-related reinterventions was 83% at 2 years, with similar rates between study groups (85% vs 83%, p=0.904).Conclusions Within the pELVIS registry, concomitant bilateral IBD implantation is a safe and feasible technique for management of aortoiliac aneurysms in patients with suitable anatomy. Despite increased technical complexity, effectiveness of the repair is satisfactory with low rates of IBD-related adverse events at mid-term follow-up. Procedural volume does not seem to affect technical or clinical outcomes after bilateral use of IBD, which remains a favorable treatment option in selected patients.

Purpose:To evaluate if the elderly could benefit from the implantation of iliac branch devices (IBDs) to preserve the patency of the internal iliac artery (IIA) in aneurysms involving the iliac bifurcation. Materials and Methods:From January 2005 to April 2017, 804 patients enrolled in the pELVIS registry underwent endovascular aneurysm repair with 910 IBDs due to aneurysmal involvement of the iliac bifurcation. Among the 804 patients, 157 (19.5%) were octogenarians (mean age 82.9±2.5 years; 157 men) with 171 target IIAs for preservation. Outcomes at 30 days included technical success, death, conversion to open surgery, and major complications. Outcomes evaluated in follow-up were patency of the IBD and target vessels, type I and type III endoleaks, aneurysm-related reinterventions, aneurysm-related death, and overall patient survival. Kaplan-Meier analyses were employed to evaluate the late outcome measures; the estimates are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results:Technical success was 99.4% with no intraoperative conversions or deaths (1 bridging stent could not be implanted, and the IIA was sacrificed). Perioperative mortality was 1.9%. The overall perioperative aneurysm-related complication rate was 8.9% (14/157), with an early reintervention rate of 5.1% (8/157). Median postoperative radiological and clinical follow-up were 21.8 months (range 1–127) and 29.3 months (range 1–127), respectively. Estimated rates of freedom from occlusion of the IBD, the IIA, and the external iliac artery at 60 months were 97.7% (95% CI 96.1% to 99.3%), 97.3% (95% CI 95.7% to 98.9%), and 98.6% (95% CI 97% to 99.9%), respectively. Estimated rates of freedom from type I and type III endoleaks and device migration at 60 months were 90.9% (95% CI 87% to 94.3%), 98.7% (95% CI 97.5% to 99.8%), and 98% (95% CI 96.4% to 99.6%), respectively. Freedom from all cause reintervention at 60 months was 87.4% (95% CI 82.6% to 92.2%). The estimated overall survival rate at 60 months was 59% (95% CI 52.4% to 65.6%). Conclusion:IBD implantation in octogenarians provided acceptable perioperative mortality and morbidity rates, with satisfying long-term freedom from IBD-related complications and should be considered a feasible repair option for selected elderly patients affected by aneurysms involving the iliac bifurcation.

Iatrogenic type A aortic dissection following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a life-threatening complication, with reported incidence rates ranging from 1.3% to 6.8%. Urgent open surgical repair is recommended when this complication occurs. In the present case, surgery was not performed at the onset of symptoms in a 61-year-old female initially treated with TEVAR for an acute type B aortic dissection. She was referred to our center 3 months later with a chronic type A dissection with the primary entry tear located in the arch. In this very fragile patient, we performed an endovascular repair with an arch branched endograft in combination with surgical debranching of the right carotid and left subclavian arteries.Clinical Impact Branched endograft exclusion of chronic type A dissections resulting from a TEVAR complication is a minimally-invasive approach to consider in very fragile patients to mitigate the potential risks associated with conventional open surgical repair.

Purpose: Advanced age has been related to conflicting outcomes after fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR). The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare 30-day mortality, technical success, and 1-year and 5-year survival in octogenarians and non-octogenarians who underwent F/BEVAR for complex aortic aneurysms.Materials and Methods: This meta-analysis was pre-registered to PROSPERO (CRD42022348659). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement was followed. A search of the English literature, via Ovid, using MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases, until August 30, 2022, was executed. Randomized Control Trials and observational studies (2000-2022), with ≥5 patients, reporting on 30-day mortality and 1-year and 5-year survival rates among octogenarians and non-octogenarians after F/BEVAR were eligible. The Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was applied to assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality and secondary was 1-year and 5-year survival in octogenarians and non-octogenarians. The outcomes were summarized as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A narrative presentation was selected in case of missing outcomes.Results: The initial research isolated 3263 articles; 6 retrospective studies were finally included. A total of 7410 patients were managed with F/BEVAR; 1499 patients (20.2%) were ≥80 years old (75.5% males, 259/343). The estimated 30-day mortality was 6% among octogenarians vs 2% in younger patients, with a significantly higher 30-day mortality for patients ≥80 years old (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61-1.81; p=0.0.11; Ι2=36.01%). Technical success was similar between the groups (OR −0.83; 95% CI −1.74-0.07, p<0.0.001; Ι2=95.8%). Regarding survival, a narrative approach was decided due to missing data. Two studies reported a statistically significant difference in 1-year survival between groups, with higher mortality in octogenarians (82.5%-90% vs 89.5%-93%), while 3 reported a similar 1-year survival rate in both groups (87.1%-95% vs 88%-89.5%). At 5 years, 3 studies reported a statistically significant lower survival for octogenarians (26.9%-42% vs 61%-71%).Conclusions: Octogenarians treated with F/BEVAR presented higher 30-day mortality while a lower survival rate at 1 and 5 years was reported in the literature. Patient selection is thus mandatory among older patients. Further studies, especially on patient risk stratification, are needed to estimate the F/BEVAR outcomes on elder patients.Clinical Impact Age may be a factor of increased early and long-term mortality within patients managed for aortic aneurysms. In this analysis, patients over 80 years old were compared to their younger counterparts when managed with fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) . The analysis showed that early mortality was acceptable for octogenrains but significantly higher when compared to patients younger than 80 years. One-year survival rates are controversial. At 5-year follow-up, octogenarians present lower survival but data to provide metanalysis are lacking. Patient selection and risk stratification are mandatory in older candidates for F/BEVAR.

Objective: The main objective of this study is to present the experience of 2 centers undertaking total percutaneous aortic arch-branched graft endovascular repair using combination of femoral and axillary routes. The report summarizes the procedural steps, outcomes achieved, and the benefits of this approach, which eliminates the need for direct open surgical exposure of the carotid, subclavian, or axillary arteries, thereby reducing the unnecessary associated surgical risks.Methods: Retrospectively collected data of 18 consecutive patients (15M:3F) undergoing aortic arch endovascular repair using a branched device between February 2021 and June 2022 at 2 aortic units. Six patients were treated for a residual aortic arch aneurysm following previous type A dissection with size range of (58–67 mm in diameter), 10 were treated for saccular or fusiform degenerative atheromatous aneurysm with size range of (51.5–80 mm in diameter), and 2 were treated for penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) with size range of (50–55 mm). Technical success was defined as completion of the procedure and satisfactory placement of the bridging stent grafts (BSGs) in the supra-aortic vessels percutaneously including the brachiocephalic trunk (BCT), left common carotid artery (LCCA), and left subclavian artery (LSA) without the need for carotid, subclavian, or axillary cut down. The primary technical success was examined as primary outcome well as any other related complications and reinterventions as secondary outcomes.Results: The primary technical success with our alternative approach was achieved in all 18 cases. There was one access site complication (groin haematoma), which was managed conservatively. There was no incidence of death, stroke, or cases of paraplegia. No other immediate complications were noted. Postoperative imaging confirmed supra-aortic branch patency, with satisfactory position of the BSGs and immediate aneurysm exclusion except in 4 patients who had type 1C endoleak (Innominate: 2, LSA 2) detected on the first postoperative scan. Three of them were treated with relining/extension, and 1 spontaneously resolved after 6 weeks.Conclusions: Total percutaneous aortic arch repair with antegrade and retrograde inner-branch endografts can be performed with promising early results. Dedicated steerable sheaths and appropriate BSG would optimize the percutaneous approach for aortic arch endovascular repairs.Clinical Impact This article provides an alternative and innovative approach to improve the minimally invasive techniques in the endovascular treatment of the aortic arch conditions.